Return-path: Received: from styx.suse.cz ([82.119.242.94]:42188 "EHLO mail.suse.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753907AbXFWLoz (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jun 2007 07:44:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 13:44:51 +0200 From: Jiri Benc To: Johannes Berg Cc: Andy Green , linux-wireless Subject: Re: [WIP] mac80211: kill mgmt interface Message-ID: <20070623134451.643dd40c@logostar.upir.cz> In-Reply-To: <1182581630.21939.105.camel@johannes.berg> References: <1182418939.10821.8.camel@johannes.berg> <20070621143558.68fc8e4a@griffin.suse.cz> <1182429920.21939.1.camel@johannes.berg> <20070621151441.500d62d5@griffin.suse.cz> <20070622154545.29eeebdb@griffin.suse.cz> <467BDCB1.1010604@warmcat.com> <1182526221.21939.94.camel@johannes.berg> <20070622174953.500817e0@griffin.suse.cz> <1182543620.21939.98.camel@johannes.berg> <467CB691.2090806@warmcat.com> <1182581630.21939.105.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:53:50 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Who started this anti-nl80211 thing anyway? I still don't see what's so > wrong with sending frames down a PF_NETLINK socket rather than a > PF_PACKET socket. Perhaps it was just my misunderstanding about the monitor interface tx injection patches; I though this mechanism should be used for hostapd and user space MLME, which I consider wrong. Johannes' comment about different needs (and thus having both injection through monitor iface and through netlink) makes perfectly sense, though. Andy, is using a monitor interface (for both injecting and receiving of frames) acceptable for you? If yes, let's drop my proposal (I said it might turn up to be useless :-)), apply patches for monitor iface injection and implement a netlink soultion as a replacement of the current management interface. Thanks, Jiri -- Jiri Benc SUSE Labs